SHORT COMMUNICATION Eur J Biol 2019; 78(2): 165-168

The Effect of Body Shape Type on Differentiability of Traditional and Geometric Morphometric Methods: A Case Study of Channa gachua (Hamilton, 1822)

Atta Mouludi-Saleh1 , Soheil Eagderi1 , Hadi Poorbagher1 , Shirin Kazemzadeh1 1University of Tehran, Faculty of Natural Resources, Department of Fisheries, Karaj,

ORCID IDs of the authors: A.M.S. 0000-0002-0939-0901; S.E. 0000-0001-8649-9452; H.P. 0000-0003-0546-8713; S.K. 0000-0003-0253-4148

Please cite this article as: Mouludi Saleh A, Eagderi S, Poorbagher H, Kazemzadeh S. The Effect of Body Shape Type on Differentiability of Traditional and Geometric Morphometric Methods: A Case Study of Channa gachua (Hamilton, 1822). Eur J Biol 2019; 78(2): 165-168. DOI: 10.26650/EurJBiol.2019.0011

ABSTRACT

Objective: The morphological differences of two populations of the Dwarf snakehead, Channa gachua (Hamilton, 1822) from Sarbaz (Makran basin) and Halil (Hamun-e Jaz Murian basin) rivers were studied using geometric and traditional morphometrics (GM and TM) methods to test the hypothesis that the type of body shape can produce different results. Materials and Methods: A total of 16 landmark-points and 12 distance measurements were defined to analyse the body shape differences and the extracted data were analyzed using GM and TM methods. Results: Our findings reject the hypothesis, and the results revealed that GM is more effective in detecting meticulous morphological differences. Conclusion: In addition, the results suggest selecting a proper method i.e. GM or TM, based on the degree of accuracy needed i.e. if we need to find small shape differences within its signification, GM is a superior technique, or to show the type of differences, then we can use TM. Keywords: Freshwater Fish, Morphology, Phenotypic Plasticity, Generalized Procrustes Analysis

INTRODUCTION It bring to us this hypothesis that such differences may be related to the body shape type of the studied Comparative studies on the body shape in fishes are organisms. For instance, if a fish’s body shape is simple, commonly used to understand many aspects such as then we can expect similar results of both TM and GM resource management, evolution, behaviour, ecology methods; and if the body shape is complex, then we and phenotype plasticity (1-6). In many works, which can expect a different result. Therefore, this study was have investigated the morphological variation of the conducted to compare the body shape of the dwarf biological structures using traditional (TM) (7-9) and snakehead, Channa gachua, using TM and GM methods. geometric morphometric (GM) (10-17) techniques, it has been suggested that GM is more effective to detect Channa gachua is a species with large head scales and morphological disparities (4, 8). Additionally, it have elongate dorsal and anal fins, and with the ability to been shown that both methods can lead to similar (12) breathe from air inhabiting tropical and sub-tropical or different results (9). water bodies (18). It is a fish species with a bottom rover

Address for Correspondence: Soheil Eagderi E-mail: [email protected] Submitted: 29.05.2019 • Revision Requested: 24.07.2019 • Last Revision Received: 20.08.2019 • Accepted: 04.09.2019 © Copyright 2019 by The Istanbul University Faculty of Science • Available online at http://ejb.istanbul.edu.tr • DOI: 10.26650/EurJBiol.2019.0011

165 Eur J Biol 2019; 78(2): 165-168 Mouludi Saleh et al. The Traditional and Geometric Morphometric Methods of the Dwarf Snakehead

Figure 1. Defined landmark-points to extract the body shape data of Channa gachua. (1) anterior-most point of the snout tip on the upper jaw, (2) center of the eye, (3) dorsal edge of the head perpendicular to the center of eye, (4) origin and (5) insertion point of the dorsal-fin base, (6) postero-dorsal end of the caudal peduncle at its connection to the caudal fin, (7) posterior end of the medial region of the caudal peduncle, (8) postero-ventral end of the caudal peduncle at its connection to the caudal fin, (9) insertion and (10) origin point of the anal-fin base, (11) most anterior point of the pectoral fin, (12) posterior edge of the opercle, (13) ventral end of the gill slit, (14) the line extends perpendicularly to the most basic part of the gill slit above the head, (15) The terminus of the oral clefts in the upper jaw and (16) ventral edge of the head perpendicular to the center of eye. body shape pattern i.e. a simple body shape that expects the same results of both TM and GM methods. The biggest population of this species in the western Asia, is found in the Makran, Mashkid and Hamun-e Jaz Murian basins of Iran (18). Where M(t) is standardized values of characters, M(0) = characters MATERIALS AND METHODS of the observed length L = standard length mean of all samples, L(0) = a standard length of each sample and b = regression In total, 40 specimens of C. gachua representing two different coefficient between log L(0) and log M(0). populations were collected from the Halil (n= 17, 28°40'29.43"N, 57°42'22.96"E, Hamun-e Jaz Murian basin) and Sarbaz (n= Analyses for GM method were performed using PAST and 23, 26°37'47"N, 61°15'31"E, Makran basin) rivers using an MorphoJ (version 1.01) softwares. Levin’s test and DFA/ electrofishing device (Samus MP750). After anesthesia, the Hotelling’s T-test in TM method were performed in SPSS V.19 left sides of the fresh collected specimens were photographed and PAST software, respectively. using a copy-stand equipped with a digital camera (Kodak EasyShare Z650 with a 6 MP resolution) with fins erected by RESULTS AND DISCUSSION insect pins. Then, the sampled specimens were fixed in the Geometric Method buffered formalin and transferred to a laboratory. DFA and Hotelling’s T-test showed that the two populations For the GM method, a total of 16 homologous landmark-points can be significantly differentiated in terms of the body shape were digitized using tpsDig2 software (version 2.16) (Figure 1) (P>0.0001) (Figure 2). The wireframe of the body shape showed on 2D pictures. A Generalized Procrustes analysis (GPA) was differences in position of the snout and caudal peduncle length. used to remove non-shape data, including size, position and In the population, the body was deeper and the eyes direction. The resulting data were analyzed using discriminant function analysis (DFA) and Hotelling’s T-test to investigate the morphological distinction between the populations. Morphological disparities between the populations were visualized using deformation grids in MorphoJ software.

For the TM method, 12 distance measurements, including SL (standard length), SnL (snout length), ED (eye horizontal diameter), HL (head length), HW (maximum head width), HDO (head depth at posterior edge of the opercle), HDE (head depth at middle of the eye), BD (body depth at dorsal-fin origin), DFL (dorsal-fin length), AFL (anal-fin length) and CPL (caudal peduncle length) were taken using dial calipers to the nearest 0.1 mm. To remove the size from data, they were standardized Figure 2. Discriminant function analysis of Channa gachua using the Beacham formula as following (19): populations from the Halil and Sarbaz rivers in GM method.

166 167 Eur J Biol 2019; 78(2): 165-168 Mouludi Saleh et al. The Traditional and Geometric Morphometric Methods of the Dwarf Snakehead

Table 1. Levin’s test and mean (± standard deviation) of each morphological character measured in Channa gachua from Sarbaz and Halil rivers populations (All measurements are shown in mm. Variables for which significant differences were obtained are highlighted in bold). Characters Sarbaz River (mean±SD) Halil River (mean±SD) F P-value SL 98.48±0.00 98.48±0.00 - SnL 4.28±0.94 4.48±1.19 7.37 0.01 ED 4.4±0.43 4.29±0.98 12.92 0.001 HL 29.98 ±2.03 30.1 ±2.47 2.86 0.98 HW 21.09±0.83 20.96±0.99 1.61 0.212 HDO 19.14±1.02 18.93±1.1 0.401 0.53 HDE 10.05±0.84 10.12±0.91 1.31 0.294 BH 19.81±1.27 19.49±1.20 0.085 0.772 DFL 53.12±1.38 53.04±1.3 0.074 0.788 AFL 33.81±1.79 33.24±1.19 1.93 0.177 CPL 8.5±0.90 8.3±0.87 0.029 0.885 AFL = anal-fin length, BD = body depth at dorsal-fin origin, CPL = caudal peduncle length, DFL = dorsal-fin length, ED = eye horizontal diameter, HDE = head depth at middle of the eye, HDO = head depth at posterior edge of the opercle, HL = head length, HW = maximum head width, SnL = snout length, and SL = standard length. and snout had a more ventral position than those of the Sarbaz Morphological variations in fishes are considered to be an River one (Figure 3). important adaptive strategy for populations experiencing inconsistent environments such as rivers (20). In addition, fishes show a variety of body form associated with functions such as swimming and feeding to overcome different habitats and lifestyles (10, 21). The body shape can even display the lifestyles of a fish. Therefore, based on the diversity of the habitat features or lifestyles, the degree of a biological structure can show a higher plasticity (22), e.g. those fishes with a generalized body shape, are fusiform with a pointed head and forked tail. Therefore, fusiform body designs have a lot of variations in different parts of their body shape. Figure 3. Wireframe diagram consensus body shape graph of Channa gachua populations from the Halil and Sarbaz rivers In the present study, the multivariate analysis did not show in GM method. a significant difference in TM. However in TM, comparing each morphometric data revealed differences in SnL and ED Traditional Method similar to the results of the GM method. Our findings reject the The results showed normality of the data. Levene’s test showed hypothesis that differences may be related to the body shape significant differences in the snout length and eye diameter type using GM or TM. (Table 1) (P<0.05). DFA/Hotelling’s T-test showed no significant difference between the two studied populations (P=0.975, However, it is suggested to select a proper method viz GM or F=0.334, Hotelling’s t2= = 5.64) (Figure 4). TM, prior to the analysis of the data based on the aim of the study and particularly degree of accuracy needed i.e. if we need to find small shape differences within its signification, then we can apply GM, or if our aim is to find traits which show differences, then we can use TM as well. Both methods reveal real differences but GM better signifies difference due to its higher detection ability.

Peer-review: Externally peer-reviewed.

Author Contributions: Conception/Design of study: S.E., A.M.S; Data Acquisition: S.E., A.M.S, S.K.; Data Analysis/Interpretation: S.E., A.M.S., S.K.; Drafting Manuscript: S.E., A.M.S. Critical Revision of Manuscript: S.E.; Final Approval and Accountability: S.E., H.P.; Figure 4. Discriminant function analysis of Channa gachua Technical or Material Support: S.E.; Supervision: S.E. populations from the Halil and Sarbaz rivers in TM method.

167 Eur J Biol 2019; 78(2): 165-168 Mouludi Saleh et al. The Traditional and Geometric Morphometric Methods of the Dwarf Snakehead

Conflict of Interest: The authors declare that they have no 11. Eagderi S, Esmaeilzadegan E, Pirbeigi A. Morphological responses conflicts of interest. of Capoeta gracilis and Alburnoides eichwaldii populations (Cyprinidae) fragmented due to Tarik Dam (Sefidrud River, Caspian Financial Disclosure: There are no funders to report for this Sea basin, Iran). Iranian J Ichthyol 2014; 1(2): 114-20. submission 12. Mouludi-Saleh A, Keivany Y. Morphological diversity in three species of Chubs (Squalius spp.) populations in Iranian Basins. Acknowledgements: This research was financially supported Nova Biol Reperta 2018a; 5(2): 192-204. by the University of Tehran. The authors are thankful for M. Nasri 13. Mouludi-Saleh A, Keivany Y. Morphometric analysis of Squalius for his help during the sampling. namak Khaefi et al. 2016 in Khaznagh and Ghare-Chai rivers. Sri Lanka J Aqua Sci 2018b; 23(2): 173-8. REFERENCES 14. Nasri M, Eagderi S, Farahmand H, Segherloo IH, Body shape comparison of Cyprinion macrostomum (Heckel, 1843) and 1. Ambrosio PP, Costa C, Sánchez P, Flos R. Stocking density and its Cyprinion watsoni (Day, 1872) using geometric morphometric influence on shape of Senegalese sole adults. Aqua Inter 2008; method. Inter J Aqua Biol 2013; 1(5): 240-4. 16(4): 333. 15. Nasri M, Eagderi S, Keivany Y, Farahmand H, Dorafshan S, 2. Jalili P, Eagderi S, Keivany Y. Body shape comparison of Kura bleak Nezhadheydari H. Morphological diversity of Cyprinion Heckel, (Alburnus filippii) in and Ahar-Chai rivers using geometric 1843 species (Teleostei: Cyprinidae) in Iran. Iranian J Ichthyol 2018; morphometric approach. Res Zool 2015; 5(1): 20-4. 5(2): 96-108. 3. Karpouzi VS, Stergiou KI. The relationships between mouth size 16. Razavipour P, Eagderi S, Poorbagher H, Javanshir Khooi A, Keivany and shape and body length for 18 species of marine fishes and Y. Comparative study of morphological characteristics of Tuini their trophic implications. J fish biol 2003; 62(6): 1353-65. fish (Capoeta damascina) in inland water of Iran using geometic 4. Loy A, Cataudella S, Corti M. Shape changes during the growth morphometric method. J Fish 2015; 8(1): 79-90. of the sea bass, Dicentrarchus labrax (Teleostea: Perciformes), 17. Zamani Faradonbeh M, Eagderi S, Nasri M. Geometrics in relation to different rearing conditions. In Advances in morphometric comparison of populations of waspi Cabdio morar morphometrics (1996; 399-405). Springer, Boston, MA. (Hamilton, 1822) in Mashkil and Mokran basins. Iranian Sci Fish J 5. Smith TB, Skulason S. Evolutionary significance of resource 2014; 23(2): 57-67. polymorphisms in fishes, amphibians, and birds. Annu Rev Ecol 18. Coad BW, Freshwater Fishes of Iran (Available at http://www. Syst 1996, 111-33. briancoad.com) (accessed on 4 March 2019). 6. Webb PW. Locomotor patterns in theevolution of actinopterygian 19. Elliott NG, K. Haskard JA. Koslow. Morphometric analysis of orange fishes. Am Zool 1982; 22: 329-42. roughy (Hoplostethus atlanticus) off the continental slope of 7. Mouludi Saleh A, Keivany Y, Jalali SAH. Biometry of Chub (Squalius southern Australia. J Fish Biol 1995; 46:202-20. namak Khaefi et al., 2016) in rivers of Namak Basin. J Experiment 20. Zamani Faradonbe M, Eagderi S, Moradi M. Patterns of Body Shape Anim Biol 2018; 7(1): 107-18. Variation in Capoeta gracilis (Pisces: Cyprinidae) in Relation to 8. Radkhah A, Poorbagher H, Eagderi S. Investigation of Environmental Variables in Sefidrud River Basin, Iran. J Appl Biol morphological differences of Capoeta capoeta populations in Sci 2015; 9(1): 36-42. the upstream and downstream of Zarinerood River in Urmia Lake 21. Langerhans RB, Layman CA, Langerhans AK, DeWitt TJ. Habitat- Basin. J Anim Env 2016; 8(3): 167-74. associated morphological divergence in two Neotropical fish 9. Salehinia D, Eagderi S, Khorasani NA, Zamani-Faradonbeh M. species. Biol J Linn Soc 2003; 80: 689-98. Impact of Sangban Dam on the morphologicl chaactrestics of 22. Kassen B, Bell G. Experimental evolution in Chlamydomonas. IV. Siah mahi (Capoeta gracilis, keyserling, 1864) populations using Selection in Environments that vary through time at different traditional and geometric morphometrics techniques. J Anim Env scales. Heredity 1998; 80:732-41. 2016; 8(2): 97-104. 10. Eagderi S, Esmaeilzadegan E, Madah A, Body shape variation in riffle minnows (Alburnoides eichwaldii De Filippii, 1863) populations of basin. J Biosystem Taxon 2013; 5(14): 1-8.

168 168